If I was seattle(my home town), I would not be wanting to play Carolina next week. After shutting out the Giants last week in New York they managed to beat the Bears as well in Chicago in a bruising battle of wills.

Too me, they look like the best team in the NFL at this point, I didnt pay much attention to them during the regualr season but after these last two games I am very much impressed, although they lost a damn good running back in Foster with a broken ankle in the Bear game.

Well, my football viewing season essentially ends next week with the Conference Championship games, both games outdoors where real football games are played. I hate dome teams and especially dome games like the Super Bowl in Detroit...Thats not really football, that just oversized Arena Football. Its so fake looking, played on a plastic field with a plastic roof and air conditioning. Call me old-school, but I can stand that sh*t.

I'm having a Super Bowl party, but I'll be into the caribbean food, reggae sounds and special rum drinks with only a side interest in the game.

I think DA BEARS earned every win. You remember they got 10 wins with a rookie Q.B. (who ranked last in the league) and a hellashish defense that broke down in the playoffs. A good foundation to build off of........................ROB

i & i posse, the ark band [thearkband.com] will be playing in detroit
on super sunday at the TRENCHTOWN club on woodward avenue during the game
so there will football and reggae and soca music and good eats too,

I liked the Bears, Washington and Carolina...those teams are gonna be tuff next year, especially if the bears and redskins improve their offence. All three very well coached. They will definitely put a hurt on you and play smart, my kinda football teams.

i didn't think my boys could pull it this year, but after dismantling the colts in fine fashion, i can see them goimg to the dance. i remember saying about bettis, when he was a los angeles ram, that he was my favorite back to watch besides barry sanders. and now he's a longtime steeler who almost loses the game for them after a terrible call. go figure. i think there's something in the water in pittsburgh. we moved when i was five, and i'm still a ravenous fan.
go stillers (vs. seahawks in the super bowl)

that call was awful...Palumalo (sp?) clearly intercepted that football, i could not believe the ref botched that call!!! it makes me think instant replay aint all its cracked up to be if these jokers are overturning calls that they got right the first time, and i aint even a steelers fan.

even tough i was cursing that call up and down at the time, i realize that it did make the game all that much more exciting to watch, and that's really the only game i've watched all of this season.treez wrote:

> that call was awful...Palumalo (sp?) clearly intercepted that
> football, i could not believe the ref botched that call!!! it
> makes me think instant replay aint all its cracked up to be if
> these jokers are overturning calls that they got right the
> first time, and i aint even a steelers fan.

"He maintained possession long enough to establish a catch," Pereira (nfl vp for officiating) said. "Therefore, the replay review should have upheld the call on the field that it was a catch and fumble."

WTF? Oh I see, now there is a unknown/undisclosed time element involved...ie, if you maintain possession "long enuff" its a catch. Well, he only had possession about 1 second, is that long enuff? Seems to me if its a subjective determination as to what constitues "long enuff" then its not something suitable for review by instant replay, much like pass interference.

Im not saying the ref got it right, which he obviously didnt from a common sense standpoint; Im just saying it appears the league is wrong on blaming the refs that they got it wrong unless they want to define what "long enuff" really is. Both the ref and the replay official were assuming "long enuff" was until he got up from the ground...something that can be determined from instant replay. So, why did they both get it wrong?

Something is definitely wrong here...either the rule is poorly written or the officials are poorly trained or the league is just trying to cover their embarrassed ass.

I agree with you RW, and I'm not gonna attempt to explain why it was a catch/interception. But I will say the reason that Morrelli (the ref in the game) provided was BS to the fullest, and in no way, shape or form was reason enough to overturn the call on the field.

he said somthing like...his right knee was still down while the other knee knocked the ball out, so he never had possession. Therefore, according to Morrelli, Polamalu could have been laying on the ground for 5 whole seconds before he knocked the ball out, and he never would have had possession. ya follow? it doesn't make sense to me at all.

but yea, it did make the game a helluva alot more exciting, im just glad pitt held on.

Shortly after the game, Morelli said: "I had the defender catching the ball. Before he got up, he hit it with his leg with his other leg still on the ground. Therefore, he did not complete the catch. And then he lost the ball. It came out, and so we made the play an incomplete pass."

"The definition of a catch -- or in this case an interception -- states that in the process of making a catch a player must maintain possession of the ball after he contacts the ground," Pereira said.
..............................................................................................

LOL..so, how long must he maintain possesion after he contacts the ground...5 milliseconds or 5 seconds? And to think millions of dollars rests on how such a rule is interpreted. They have been emphasing this rule all season long that like when you catch a ball and go sailing out of bounds you've got to maintain possession as you tumble into the gatorade table...

There's a related rule that makes a little more sense to me. The rule, for reasons unknown, only applies when the player catches the ball, is hit by another player, and then the ball pops out. The rules says something like...The player must catch the ball, and make a "football move" in order for it to be ruled a catch.

Now, why can't that apply to Palamalu, who obviously caught the ball and made a football move before the ball popped out? it would eliminate the time factor.

Ah, lets see...but you have to make that football move while in possession of the ball, something Palamalu didnt do unless you consider just starting to get up is a football move. What the hell is a football move anyway? And what if you catch the ball and just fall down without a football move and then the ball pops out after 2 seconds..is that a catch? The whole thing needs serious review and when they figure it all out let the viewing public in on how the rule is interpreted.